< 4 May	6 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Mercier[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Appeared as a main cast member in one long running soap opera, but otherwise only had a few roles in minor productions. One source in the article and I found only one other minor source in a WP:BEFORE search. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do you know that she only had a few roles in minor productions apart from her role in Emmerdale? This article actually says "had a long career on stage before her television career", unlike many articles about British actors which only mention their screen appearances. However, apart from naming the theatre manager whose company she worked in, it doesn't give much more information about her theatre roles, so I will attempt to find some - but really, please do a proper WP:BEFORE before nominating people whose active careers happened before the internet! RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched and didn't find anything new or detailed about her stage career, so it didn't appear to be notable. People can just read the article before voting, not everything needs to be specified individually. I've gotten slammed before at AfD for getting too wordy with my nomination reasons. I'm all ears if you have better luck. I've seen your work before, so I know you excel at finding hard to locate sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG – Thanks RebeccaGreen for adding sources and further details. — JFG ^talk 03:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG The three sources added are passing mentions over a period of seven years, which is hardly sustained WP:SIGCOV. More like WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen much worse, and this article may yet be expanded. In our online world, few people search for sources about a career that peaked in the paper age. Hopefully some editors will fill the gaps some day. — JFG ^talk 03:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the argument of, well sources might one day appear from the mists of time so this must stay indefinitely, has no basis in policy. We are evaluating the article today and with sources that are available now. If you or others find sustained WP:SIGCOV later, then feel free to recreate the article. It has existed for over 12 years, so you can't fairly say this AfD is rushing anything. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take it from another angle. This person's participation in the long-running Whitehall farces and Emmerdale soap opera passes the WP:NACTOR threshold. That the article was stale for 12 years means nothing, because notability does not fade with time, even if popularity and name recognition do. As she just turned 100, we are likely to see some more coverage, plaudits and career retrospectives. Even without that, she's notable enough for Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. The article states she worked in the Whitehall farces, but it doesn't say in what capacity. For all we know, she just mopped the floors after the show or played an occasional role, and the source (which was about someone else mind you) is behind a paywall, so I can't tell for myself if it says anymore. The fact that her role was not specified in more detail leads me to believe it is not as impressive as you seem to think. There was no WP:RS coverage of her 100th birthday either. Newshunter12 (talk) 04Hello :29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Re the source so far included for the Whitehall Farces - it is an article about Sheila Mercier: Annie Sugden was the character she played in Emmerdale, so the title of the article is referencing her character. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got mixed up between two sources you added, but my point stands that I can't read either of them, and while a good find, this source was a mere vague brief mention of the Whitehall Farces decades after the fact. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not finished adding sources, and there is more information about the Whitehall farces. I spent some time during the 4 hour flight home just now looking at the Wikipedia articles about those farces. It seems that the films based on them are notable, while most of the plays themselves have not merited articles, though they ran continuously for 3 or 4 years each. Is that due to reliance on IMDB as a source of information, I wonder, or a genuine reflection of sources? (I know that IMDB is not considered reliable, and is not even accepted as a source these days, but many WP articles about actors seem to have been created with IMDB as the main or sole source.) The farces were also shown on TV - the stage versions, I mean - and Brian Rix's article has some info about audience numbers - but again, they have not been considered individually notable. So I think there will be a bit of work before it's clear if Sheila Rix/ Mercer is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG – Thanks to RebeccaGreen for adding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. Rillington (talk)

@Rillington The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meets WP:NACTOR schetm (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in Some Joe You Don't Know is certainly SIGCOV, and the longevity in her role meets point three of NACTOR. RebeccaGreen says that the articles behind the paywall are SIGCOV, so I choose to assume good faith and believe her. schetm (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@schetm The source Some Joe You Don't Know had already been present in the article as the sole source, so I wasn't referring to that when talking about the added sources. It is indeed WP:SIGCOV, but as just one source it is not the requisite sustained WP:SIGCOV. It's just WP:ONEEVENT as of now - her time on that one show. No where did RebeccaGreen say the three sources she added were significant. In fact, if you checkback up above in her comment, she said she needed to check over further sources to see if Sheila Mercier was notable or not, with the implicit meaning that as of right now she is not. All three of the new keep voters piled on that the small stories she added are wonderful and push this woman way over WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, but even RG didn't conclude that. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the notion that a 20 year tenure as a character on a TV show is WP:ONEEVENT and, again, I view it as meeting point three of NACTOR. The fact that other sources exist, even if we can't read them, raises the possibility of sustained SIGCOV, and defaults me to keep. The headline "Don't look for Annie on the farm" certainly seems to indicate that the article would be about Mercier, so that would be the second RS schetm (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Germcrow (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Germcrow The sources added are a few passing mentions over seven years, one of which is an article about her brother where she is just mentioned as his sister, not sustained WP:SIGCOV. She fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She didn't have significant roles in multiple notable productions, she doesn't have a large fan base, and she hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She was a regular on one tv show and played a minor role in some other productions. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: You've made your point loud and clear. Please be mindful of [[WP:BLUDGEON]bludgeoning]] the discussion. — JFG ^talk 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am working on tables showing her stage roles and her Whitehall farce roles (in which she appeared at the Whitehall Theatre, regional theatres, and on BBC TV). I see no reason why the long-running Whitehall farces should not be considered notable - there are enough reviews of them to support WP articles. So they are notable productions, and the subject had significant roles in them, so she does meet WP:NACTOR. I hope to add the tables, and quotes from reviews of productions she appeared in, to the article soon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR criteria 2 as has a significant fan base as one of the main characters in a tv series that had over 10 million peak time viewers for 20years, also many stage roles Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added the tables, edited the article and added information and quotes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Woolf[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on this child actor look like WP:TOOSOON to me. The two films he has a lead role in are not yet out. Tacyarg (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no depth of coverage - one of sources is IMDB, another is a promotional post. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR - has had supporting roles, but no "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" - and has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BASIC and does not meet any of the 3 criteria for WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Supporting roles can be significant Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace as it's WP:TOOSOON now but he may be notable after the two films are released Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lagier[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This writer doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. No evidence of being widely cited by peers or successors; not that almost all the references given in this article are to online-published copies of her work rather than any analysis or critique. No identification of a new technique or concept; no role in a well-known work. Mikeblas (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a non-notable or not-yet-notable writer. Searches turn up the small magazines where she has published and her facebook page. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a Literary CV, not an article - having a large body of published work does not equal notable - does not meet WP:POET which requires a well-known work - Epinoia (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FC Tofaga season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page doesn't follow WP:GNG or is in a team that competes in an professional league. Matt294069 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Enough info but no reference. Draftify this until it meets requirements Germcrow (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Germcrow: The thing is, the team doesn't compete in a professional league which is one of the requirements for GNG. So putting in a draft wouldn't help in the article use for WP:N. Matt294069 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - it's a requirement for WP:NSEASONS but that doesn't trump the GNG. Would it be surprise if the top team's season in a nation where football is the number one support, might meet GNG requirements even though not fully-professional? I can't see much indication that anyone has really researched very far. So why not put in draft, for if references can be found, then it would help it meet WP:N @Matt294069: Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oddly, the lead doesn't say what sport this is - according to WP:NSPORT, sports related articles must meet WP:GNG which states that there must be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - as this article has no citations at all, it does not meet the notability requirements and therefore delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Baeza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not pass WP:NACTRESS as I can't find third party sources on the British actress.

The article itself is lacking sources. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to meet WP:ACTOR with major roles in TV programs/films including the 1998 Far from the Madding Crowd, 2000 Anna Karenina, 2008 Passion, 2001 The Way We Live Now, The Project (2002). She's also won a BAFTA award for directing, one of the most prestigious in her industry.[1] Additional sources are likely to be paywalled (newspapers, specialist film magazines). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as outlined above she has multiple prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR and also passes WP:ANYBIO with the winning of a BAFTA a very notable award Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR for many roles in major productions, there is also coverage of her as director/animator - [2][3][4][5] thereby satisfying WP:GNG, she has also won a major award for her work - [6]. That she qualifies on multiple grounds suggests a basic WP:BEFORE had not been conducted before the nomination. Hzh (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's clear from the article that she meets WP:NACTOR. No doubt more references could be added, but that is not a reason to bring an article to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Hotel (New York City)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. A relatively small hotel in NYC with no claim of notability. Refs appears all to be primary sources, or WP:CITEKILL passing mentions of events held there, or routine travel-guide type listings. Lack of significant in-depth coverage in Reliable Sources. MB 22:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those sources are a mess, and I can't find anything beyond them that establishes notability. (As an aside, this is purely anecdotal, but it certainly doesn't help if I have never heard of this hotel even as an NYC resident.) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:19, 06 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, alarm bells ringing when parent company (Grand Life Hotels), doesn't have a wikiarticle, goog search doesn't bring up anything useable, blog reviews, commercial hotelfinder sites, also looks like a case of WP:PROMOTION so is a delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No depth of coverage, no real sources. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial mentions in few reliable sources.--94rain ^Talk 12:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent sources, most of them are just reviews and appears promotional in nature. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. The vast majority of references are trivial and primary. INeedSupport ^:3 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It seems like the key argument boils down between those who argue that the sources posted by VQuakr are adequate and those who argue against. In cases where canvassing/offsite discussion are an issue, I am generally inclined to pay less attention to headcounts as these are the most easily distorted ones. There are also many people writing vague rationales - when we argue about a website being notable or not, we need sources and a discussion of what makes these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV - here. But either way there is no consensus for deletion here, perhaps leaning towards outright "keep" actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you looked at the prior nominations? Can you try to come up with a more complete argument than "Fails GNG."? ST47 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snow close might be warranted. Nominator is invited to review WP:BEFORE. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wrote a very lengthy review that took quite a bit of time to write up and have added above. "Fails GNG was merely placeholder text. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I struck my previous !vote and will add one at the bottom of the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': This is my rather lengthy review and rationale for deletion. I did not expect people to comment on this within the first ten minutes, and it took me a little longer to write than expected.

Third time's the charm. ;)

The main issue is that it fails WP:GNG, and lacks significant independent third party reliable source coverage.

Let's review the sources for the article. The article has been tagged since Oct 2018 for over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources. Indeed, 9 out of the 18 sources used in the article are sourced to Rational Wiki themselves. The fact the article has to rely so heavily on primary sources should be a clue to its notability. Let's examine the other sources:

Simon, Stephanie (June 22, 2007). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times.
Haines, Lester (June 20, 2007). "Need hard facts? Try Conservapedia". The Register.

These are sources about Conservapedia, and merely make a trivial mention of Rationalwiki. Indeed, this is the pattern we'll see, that third party sources make small references or quote from Rational Wiki, but none of them cover Rational Wiki in depth or make it the focus of the article.

Keeler, Mary; Johnson, Josh; Majumdar, Arun. "Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems" (PDF).

Another trivial mention. It spends one sentence discussing RW, then quotes their mission statement. Then it discusses Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit which is listed on the site.

Ballatore, Andrea. "Google chemtrails: A methodology to analyze topic representation in search engine results". 20.7 (2015). First Monday.

Two sentences focusing on RW out of the entire study, which simply lists the results found. Trivial reference.

Smith, Jonathan C. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp 77. 9781119029489

I don't have access to this book, but the article cites it just once and says the source "lists" RW, which leads me to believe this is another trivial reference. Likely a list of good online sources to check out.

Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al. (eds.). Intelligent Systems'2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323. Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.

Another source I don't have access to, but it seems to be transcripts from some kind of conference where someone listed RW briefly as a good online source. Looks to be another trivial mention.

Brojakowski, Benjamin (August 2017). "Digital Whiteness Imperialism: Redefining Caucasian Identity Post-Boston Bombing". Bowling Green State University (dissertation).

Pretty sure dissertations are not classified as RS. And in any case, it's another trivial mention.

Murphy, Paul (November 19, 2014). "American Thinker is a Wingnut Publication"

This is the first source so far that's a third party source actually discussing RW directly. However, I'm not sure if American Thinker is a RS, and it does look to be an opinion piece where the author complains about something RW said about American Thinker.

Selgin, George (June 4, 2015). "Ten Things Every Economist Should Know about the Gold Standard".

Blog post by the CATO institute complaining about something RW said.

Einspruch, Franklin (September 6, 2016). "Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists". The Federalist.

Another opinion piece whining about something RW said.

And that is it for sources used for the page. If you were to trim all the Primary sources, and just used third party, I'm certain you'd be left with a WP:PERMASTUB.

Now, what about sources that aren't listed on the page? The pattern of trivial mentions continue. I will post some examples below:

What is a hoop snake, and why did these Alabamians think they saw one? AL.com

A post by an Alabama news site that merely mentions RW in one sentence.

These are the best arguments from the 3% of climate scientist 'skeptics.' Really.- The Guardian

An opinion piece in The Guardian which again, makes about one sentence reference to the site.

Lastly, I will review the previous AFD discussion. The Keep votes were largely not based on WP policy, and at two users have major COI. Two of the Four votes to keep were from RW mods. The main issue of third party reliable sources to prove GNG was simply not discussed.

Let's review the keep votes:

First vote for stated that it's clear it's notable and cited Snopes coverage. However, the snopes pages simply quote from RW. That's not in depth coverage. Example

Second vote stated that the mentions are trivial, but there's a high number of them, which denotes notability. This keep vote is not based on WP policy at all. The mentions are trivial, and it doesn't matter how many trivial mentions you have, you need a significant of reliable sources that cover the topic in depth.

Third vote stated that RW is well known among the atheist/skeptic community, and reading about it would be of interest for those looking up information about those movements. However, the atheist/skeptic community is a niche group, and something can be notable among them, but fail GNG on Wikipedia. And stating that the site is of value is a subjective statement. Only thing that matters is third party coverage.

Last vote implied that because Conservapedia has an article, RW should get one too. This is not based on WP policy. The vote ended by citing a previous deletion vote

Conclusion: The previous debate should have at the very least been re-listed to draw greater comments. Half the keep votes were from RW mods, and none of the keep votes were based on policy. And given the lack of in depth significant coverage, this article fails WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conservapedia - There's not quite enough for a standalone article. There's a lot of sources for RW, but as proposer states, hardly any are significant coverage. Nanophosis (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... is that a good redirect? RW is a well known critic of Conservapedia, but they're distinct organizations with polar opposite goals and strategies. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While that's true, RationalWiki was created as a direct response to Conservapedia, which is my reasoning. That being said, I think a redirect would need a RfC, and I'm not sure if the majority would agree with me. It just seems too notable to delete, but not notable enough to warrant it's own article. Nanophosis (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a policy-based reason for your vote? WP:ILIKEIT doesn't cut the mustard. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - RationaWiki often makes my blood pressure rise. So it's not a case of WP:ILIKEIT. RationalWiki is too well-known to merit a serious debate about its notability.--Davidcpearce (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single proper in-depth source that I can find. Just endless trivial references. No one wants to talk about the history, founding, etc of the site. So it doesn't pass notability. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, references are from itself (not third party coverage). Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is an article with good sources and stuff, but there is no reason for it to be deleted. Felicia (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot of primary sources, which are not good sources. It only has an endless stream of trivial references in other media. Can you find a single source that actually talks about RW rather than just say it exists? Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral - Neutral due to a WP:COI,~~ but my vote ~~would be~~ is delete. Most of the non-primary sources, except American Thinker, do not constitute significant coverage as the works are covering other topics and Rational-Wiki just kind of falls into the mix. As a note to the closing clerk, check voters for any affiliation with Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia as these people come out of the woodwork whenever a major discussion (like an AfD) related to either site pops up. I am involved at both sites. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Read WP:WEBCRIT. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." RW fails that, hands down. I'm going to go ahead and make this a vote because undoubtedly other people with strong opinions will also vote on this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the last AFD was a total farce. Two of the four votes were RW Mods, and another one was a significant contributor to the site. So we have 3 RW members who made a "consensus" to keep the page. In other words, RW users decided to keep the page, not Wikipedia users. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequate coverage already demonstrated in the article to meet WP:GNG. Specifically, the American Thinker, LA Times, and The Register sources contain significant coverage which cumulatively meets the guideline. As a reminder: significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. LA Times and The Register both are well beyond trivial mentions, and the American Thinker piece is specifically about Rationalwiki. The nominator has concerns about American Thinker's reliability and the fact that it is an opinion piece, but the former isn't an issue (in the context of a notability assessment American Thinker is fine reliability-wise) and the latter is irrelevant.

The nominator also cites the essay WP:PERMASTUB, but that essay doesn't say what the nominator implies it does: that essay notes that Finished permastubs are perfectly acceptable. We don't need secondary sourcing on "the history, founding, etc of the site" in order to keep such non-contentious content, as noted at WP:PRIMARY. VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off I will point out that I am no longer a member of RationalWiki. I apologize for using a WP:SPA account here, to avoid serious harassment from their members. There are mentions of RationalWiki from many sources pointing to the sites hypocrisy, and, the site itself has a page to collect complaints from the organisations and people they defame. RationalWiki is run by SJWs [7] and has superseded it's roots as a Conservapedia mockery by encouraging people to write hit pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFlights (talk • contribs) 11:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for using a WP:SPA account here, to avoid serious harassment from their members. ~~So you're basically admitting to sockpuppetry, right?~~ Scratch that per WP:SOCKLEGIT. I don't disagree with what you said, but it's really irrelevant to the deletion discussion don't you think? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes notability. Benjamin (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These people begging for deletion are banned by the way, AlphaFlights is Mikemikev, and it obviously passes notability as Ben says. I`m Oxyaena on that wiki. Mr.23 (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As of the posting of this reply, the claim about deletion voters all being banned is a lie. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Update: Since I posted that, a moderator has blocked my account there with a nonsense reason. Franky, I don't appreciate people discussing my affairs there in the first place per WP:OUTING, beyond mere acknowledgement that I am registered there and I do not want any further conversation about the matter here on Wikipedia, but I'm just going to say that was very immature and a good taste of the mentality of administration there. Alas, that has nothing to do with whether the site is notablre or not. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly per VQuakr. There's adequate coverage, and the topic clearly meets GNG. It would also be thoughtless of me not to thank PCHS-NJROTC for giving me my best quiet, wry smile of the week so far by "com[ing] out of the woodwork" to warn unwary, aspiring closers of the potential for "these people" ("voters [with] affiliation with Rational-Wiki or Conservapedia") to "come out of the woodwork". Priceless. -- Begoon 12:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Redirect to Conservapedia#RationalWiki per nom's thorough WP:BEFORE, WP:WEBCRIT and WP:INHERITWEB. I also did an independent search for sources, and was actually really surprised that I didn't find anything meaty. The American Thinker piece is the best, but it's a blog post responding to a provocation. In the LA Times and Register pieces, it's a footnote in articles that are really about Conservipedia. They're also really only one source, since Register article is mostly quoting and summarizing the LA Times with an extra layer of its characteristic snark. The rest are blog posts and articles that just mention it briefly -- almost as if were just something random that popped up on a web search (which exactly how I'm aware of it). I don't think it meets the threshold for a standalone article. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those saying the site "Obviously passes notability" or that it has "adequate coverage". First, nothing is obvious. Second, why is the page so heavily reliant on Primary sources? Why? If the page is notable with huge amount of coverage, this should be easy to fix. Why hasn't anyone fixed it?

Where are these sources? I cannot find a single article anywhere, that actually covers the site directly. The best we have is fairly brief mentions, in two articles, one by the LA Times, and another by The Register. That's it. They discuss Conservapedia, and then briefly mention that there's another site. That is two brief mentions in two articles, that is NOT significant in-depth coverage to warrant at WP article. It's a start, but you'll way more than that. I'm sorry, but the sourcing is deeply inadaquate.

For the rest, these are just blog posts of people complaining about RW's coverage. These aren't news pieces, but blog posts and opinion pieces.

Let's look at something like Super Play or Total!. These magazines may ultimately not be notable, but through research I've found that Nintendo Life has done three page features on both magazines.1 2 That's what is meant by in-depth. Where is the equivalent for RW? For a site that's supposedly "obviously" notable, no one seems to want to talk about it or do profiles on it.

Many pages that aren't notable follow a format of WP:REFBOMBING, where primary sources are used to build the article, and then a series of trivial or minor references are used to pad the article out. That way it looks at first glance to have a lot of sources, but that's just an illusion. RW's page fits that format. Most of the page's refs (like half) are primary, and then the rest are just trivial or brief mentions. When it comes down to it, there's only two actual articles that are RS news coverage that mention the site, and that is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sigh. VQuakr totally summed up my thoughts on it. Shabidoo | Talk 11:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this user is a RationalWikian. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that this user has a bias against RationalWiki befitting a Conservapedian.--Mr.23 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yet Conservapedia does not have an active, on-wiki thread discussing this AfD like Rational-Wiki does. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though we should try to assume Good Faith, we also should be aware of that issue. The last AFD for this page, a "consensus" was reached where 3 out of the 4 votes to keep were RW users. Two of them were even mods. It's possible that again, keep votes from RW users can distort the discussion. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you, there doesn't seem much danger of your views being drowned out. You've contributed over 50% of the text here so far, and made over 25% of the posts. Have you ever read this? Between you and PCHS-NJROTC, c. 70% of the text and c. 50% of the posts.[8] AfD closers generally aren't so naive that the 'SPA' drum needs banging quite so hard, in my experience. -- Begoon 08:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an editor at wikipedia for a lot longer and I am quite familiar with the policies of wikipedia, how they work and I deeply respect them. That includes making unpopular edits based on policy, not "just because I feel that way" because these policies help keep thousands of editors contributing well to an incredible project. As you can see, most people here have quoted policy with good reasons for supporting their keep or delete comment or quoted someone else's arguments. Best to focus on the quality of the arguments made and how convincing or supported they are, not the number of votes or speculative ulterior motives. Consensus is reached based on arguments users give based on policy, not a keep vs. delete vote. Mine was based on policy, not ulterior motives. One of the pillars of wikipedia is to show good faith. It is not a trite cliché policy but fundamental to keeping this project civil and resolving sticky disagreements. Shabidoo | Talk 11:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Longevity claims. Clear consensus that the article needs to go, but there is some disagreement where it should go. The redirect argument is the most detailed in defending their particular choice and it seems like a redirect would also satisfy the concern of others, so going with that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Pollock (longevity claimant)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD a few months ago, I added a PROD2. Rationale was "A little news coverage but undoubtedly a fraudulent claim". There are a couple one-off articles about his and his parents' purported ages, but have almost no coverage of the man himself. Furthermore, even of the already few sources in the article, some are unreliable and others run afoul of WP:PRIMARY. Maybe a paragraph in the article on Longevity claims, but as it is there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be a bunch of original research here regarding whether people buried in his hometown cemetery with his surname might have been his father or his mother or his brother. (Surely he should have shown up in at least some U.S. Census records, which are publicly available up to the 1940 census, yet the issue of what ages he claimed in the early 20th century censuses doesn't arise in this article.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:NOPAGE and appears to be a WP:SYNTH of WP:OR. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longevity claims – Los Angeles Times from 1990 and Baltimore Sun from 1991 provide some minimal RS coverage, but this person lacks enduring notability. The rest of the sources are indeed primary, and there is a large SYNTH issue. A redirect to Longevity claims will satisfy the curiosity of people who may look up his name, while educating them on implausible claims of extreme age. — JFG ^talk 02:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Push to draft till it meets notability requirements. Germcrow (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Jones (author)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPA/COI made and is the significant contributor to this article; academic of little note other than a bit of press coverage for doing a Kardashian symposium. It only get coverage because of the controversial nature/media obsession. Fails GNG Rayman60 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a plausible case for WP:AUTHOR through the reviews of her books (that I just added to the article) and a stronger case for WP:PROF#C7 as, seemingly, the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians. You may argue, as Glen Wright's book does, that scholarship on this topic is "silly", but she has attracted significant popular-media attention for it (which is why I put it down as #C7 not #C1). The nominator's "It only get coverage because of" argument is irrelevant; if it got coverage, it's notable. Incidentally, re #C1, don't even try to make sense of her Google Scholar profile, as it appears to be hopelessly muddled with works by other people with similar names. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - scary thought, but based on what? 2 of the sources used for that in this article about the Kardashians are written by the subject herself. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sources probably should be moved to publications rather than being sources. The other sources for her work on the Kardashians are suitably independent. And the idea that a subject's notability should be based on the weakest sources in its article, rather than the strongest, is so wrong that I don't even know where to start. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who here said "should be based on the weakest sources" - no one would say that. I'm asking for the direct evidence for the statement "world's leading academic scholar of the Kardashians" - that is a bold claim and deserves bold proof. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a statement in the article itself, it would need reliable sources saying much the same thing. But for my opinion in an AfD, it can be based on my evaluation of what I see in the article. What I see is that major newspapers are publishing her opinion as an academic scholar of the Kardashians, and that she was the organizer of the first academic conference on the Kardashians, both indicative of being a leading scholar on the topic. And searching for "the Kardashians" on Google scholar didn't find much by others that would contradict that evaluation. Maybe there are other scholars of the same subject and she's #2 or #3 instead of #1; it doesn't make much differences for the purposes of this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
↑ WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO ↑ -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone explains in detail how they came to a conclusion, and that's exactly the same as a bare assertion?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C7 and plausibly WP:AUTHOR, as argued just above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She's only credited as an author of one book, and a couple articles. She was an editor on the other books listed. -- Netoholic @ 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being quoted a couple of times in relation to what seems like a tabloid story-of-the-day and a one-day symposium publicity stunt in the wake of Jenner's gender transformation, does not equate to "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Read Jones' damage control in the Guardian article and she even points out that the whole thing "came under attack, especially on Twitter and other online forums". Note that no one is quoting Jones anytime in 2016-2019 about the Kardashians. No way does that support a claim to WP:PROF#C7 (the "Neil deGrasse Tyson" rule). Does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR due to writing only one book, and a few articles promoting said publicity stunt. Other books have her in the role of editor, and not even top-billing. Gotta ask why the two "academics" voting above me are trying to WP:MASK this one. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the insinuations above that I must have some nefarious purpose in coming the opinion I reached to be a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. In addition, the scare quotes around academic are just gratuitous bad manners, and the investigation into the background of contributors to AfDs (despite it being no secret) creepy and bordering on WP:OUTING. Netoholic, you should back off and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop reading so much into things. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong, but I am honest. I have vanishingly little interest in Jones' subject material, but she does have a body of work (editing counts, too). I fail to see how being involved in a controversy necessarily makes Jones less notable; usually, that works quite the other way. (I also fail to see how the 2015 symposium was a "publicity stunt"; it looks like a typical brief meeting of people who study pop culture for a living. Nor would I call the Guardian opinion piece "damage control".) And what's with the scare quotes? XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now the only real evidence we have that it was a controversy was Jones' own Guardian article saying so. None of the reviews about her edited works talk about her abilities as an editor. Frankly, few people are talking about this person, and that is what notability (or lack thereof) means. The Kimposium! was a brief spike of attention, but didn't make a big enough impact at any level WP:PROF covers. -- Netoholic @ 23:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm genuinely confused about what point you are trying to make. First, you mention a (supposed) social-media controversy, in a way that clearly seems intended to diminish Jones' work. After I said that a controversy would tend to make the subject more notable, you are expressing doubt that it happened. I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the scare quotes that doesn't force me to abandon good faith. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its about the threshold of evidence between what we can use in an article and what we can use in this discussion. I think her own Guardian proves that she does fit the WP:PROF#C7 criteria, but also that article is a bad source for use in the actual article here since its primary sourced. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer either of my questions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone viewing this article as part of this discussion: please pay attention to the article history and Netoholic's edits to it, which (especially in light of the above comments) seem intended to strengthen Netoholic's case against keeping the article rather than to strengthen the article and the encyclopedia. I'm out of reverts for now so if N keeps pushing the same bad edits then someone else is going to have to revert them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What an incredibly bold "call to arms". Yes, readers, please look at the edit history there. When David says he's "out of reverts" he means he's overspent them and broken 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the edit war there isnt anything substantial about the subject from independent reliable sources. Gnan garra 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been substantially expanded since it was nominated for deletion. She has co-authored a book with two other authors (Professors from the University of Leeds) published by Manchester University Press and with a June 2019 publication date, which I have added. One of the journal articles contributing to this was included in discussions on Australian Radio (Radio National – see article talk for links)... this was not Kardashian-related and shows her views as being seen as notable by reliable, third-party, independent media organisations. I have added links to several single-author papers in reputable journals. I suspect more can be found, and so I oppose deletion of this BLP. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding more and more to her bibliography is just more WP:MASKing, at best, and WP:OR, more likely, especially in how her publications have been weaved into a narrative in that "Jones was one of the four co-investigators" paragraph. -- Netoholic @ 10:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - as per WP:RS nothing meets that to establish notability, a new work to be published later in there year doesnt confer it just appears to be created as promotional for that. Gnan garra 10:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Netoholic, try reading the references, like the website of the SSSS project which lists the team, or the back page of the report to the ESRC that states:

Principal Investigator: Ruth Holliday

Co-Investigators: David Bell, Meredith Jones, Elspeth Probyn and Jacqueline Sanchez Taylor

Then, come back here and here and apologise for suggesting I was engaging in WP:OR. You might also look at the part of my edit summary that says "media coverage of the project still to come", which includes RS in Australia - the non-trivial, independent, RS kind that a proper WP:BEFORE should have located, like the book being published in June 2019 (which negates your "she's only authored one book" line, which is actually two books, edited a couple of others, and contributed chapters to at least three others). EdChem (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since may 2019 the book being published in June 2019 is irrelevant unless it's a WP:PROMO, come back in August september after its published and the RS exist Gnan garra 10:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, its less OR and more specifically WP:SNYTH. You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Feel free to list them as raw information in the Bibliography section (we can debate if individual works are warranted there if we have no secondary reviews), but they should not be used the way you have. -- Netoholic @ 11:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think that a report which states who is the principal investigator and who are the co-investigators – a report submitted to the funding agency – is not a reliable source for who was the principal investigator and who were the co-investigators? Or, are you suggesting that citing the book publisher's page on the book stating the position of the authors is not reliable? Or, are you just trying to avoid actually reading the references? Or ...? EdChem (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot take her primary sources - her bibliography - and construct a paragraph from them. Sure you can. It's often advisable, from a writing-flow point of view, since a paragraph often reads better than a list. We're supposed to be writing articles, not CV's. Converting a list to prose isn't synthesis; it's following the Manual of Style. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't at all add to notability... which is the whole point of this AFD to decide. Its just WP:MASKing. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:NACADEMIC#1, demonstrated by EdChem's excellent work on the article. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

demonstrated by what, still nothing to make the author notable, its just a list of TV appearances. There are no sources to support information about the subject. Gnan garra 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The seems mostly "of note" due to a single event, ie, the seminar/workshop on the Ks. The subject is quoted by a range of commentators and authors / journalists, but it seems mostly due to the single event, and is not significantly maintained. The subject does have some citation exposure but pretty much routine and a lot of it is shared. I am not sure there is enough on aggregation to pass GNG, not readily passing any NSUBJECT. I suggest SINGLEEVENT and TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C7 or WP:AUTHOR based on XOR'easter and David Epstein's votes/comments above. If not kept, this article should be partially merged/redirected to her wikinotable book Skintight: An Anatomy of Cosmetic Surgery. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her book 'Skintight' has been cited >200 times according to Google Scholar. She has published 24 other books and book chapters. She is regularly cited in the UK and Australian media on the subject of cosmetic surgery - searching Google News for "Meredith Jones" "cosmetic surgery" turns up 15 results from 2011-2019. searching for "meredith jones" kardashian gives another 13, mostly in the UK and Europe. She seems to be a respected and productive academic who is regularly tapped for comment by the media. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Neumann[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress with just one film role. The rest of her roles are apparently just for advertisements. I can't find any notability for her whatsoever. Either delete or a redirect to her only role. Wgolf (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDB has nothing. François Robere (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gimubrc (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage of her career with only one known prominent role Atlantic306 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sperling[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much an article about a corporate officer/consultant doing a job. The sources are largely about the role or PR/announcement and less about the person herself. Some sources read like bespoke profiles. Apparently run-of-the-mill, hardly more insightful than a linkedin profile. Fails WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this résumé. Refund when she actually meets notability guidelines. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Merwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP, and writing credits which the article does not exist or some minor episodes. Sheldybett (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some more content and refs to the article. Based on the reference listed in the comments here (The Picturegoer, 22.11.1913: 194 & 197 – “How I Write My Picture Plays” by Bannister Merwin in which he says: “Almost all our work is done in collaboration.” Includes a photo of “Mr & Mrs Bannister Merwin the well-known authors, who have written in collaboration many Edison film plays.) I think there are probably more offline references. Tacyarg (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with extra reliable sources references. Also in a subject this old there is no hint of promotionalism, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability (mavens of silent film could probably expand it). WP:BLP is irrelevant for someone who died in 1962. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Delete. These two actors were professionals and journeymen, but they were certainly not Notable, or else there would be more written about them in their lifetimes. Sure, they are mentioned in passing, but not as central characters in any news or feature story. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced for its era, even if it was much less well sourced I would lean towards a snowball keep based on period and subject. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with her more notable spouse Bannister Merwin with whom she co-authored the works for which she is remembered. Sources are too strong to make deletion eligible. I lean towards keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If they were really Notable as a writing team, then WP:Merge would be fine. Do we really have sources for their teamwork, or are we just reaching for the sky here? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - co-author of more than half a dozen screenplays. While we have access to nice databases for the period for American newspapers and film sources, unfortunately we don't for British sources of the same period.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that she did co-author some works with her husband, but others say "by Anne Merwin", so it would be better to have separate articles. More information and sources can be found - they wrote fiction, as well as screenplays. But as it is, the article is well-sourced and informative. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Chastain[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed Mayoral candidate. Fails WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful mayoral candidates, or for being the inspiration for non-notable characters in non-notable novels by non-notable writers, but this features neither the depth of sourceability nor the substance to deem him a special case of significantly greater notability than most other unsuccessful mayoral candidates. By definition, local media always covers local municipal elections, so the existence of a couple of local media hits is not a free pass over GNG that exempts unsuccessful candidates from having to satisfy NPOL — if there were stronger evidence that he had enough preexisting notability for other reasons besides the mayoral campaign to be deemed notable on those grounds, then I'd be willing to reconsider this, but that's not what the substance or the sourcing here are showing. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat. No notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Riq[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable rapper, no reliable source in the page, no indication that any could be found. On 4 May I moved this to draft space, where it was declined by two AfC reviewers; the WP:SPA still seems to think it belongs in mainspace. A7 has been declined three times (twice by me), bringing it here seems to be the only remaining option. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've restored Draft:Solo Riq and redirected it here, as histmerge didn't seem to be a possibility (the second AfC decline was after the copy-paste move to mainspace); the earlier history of the page can be seen there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly a creation by an SPA who seems to try to establish notability through a Wikipedia article as opposed creating an article about someone who is notable. There are no sources that can be identified to support notability. Statements in the article are poorly sourced (primary/unreliable) - due to lack of independent sourcing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 – I explained in great detail why the subject is not notable in my talk page conversation to the creator. This is A7 worthy as this rapper is literally completely unknown. There is zero coverage in reliable sources or any non primary sources for that matter. StaticVapor message me! 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author is very desperate to save this article, he has been begging on my talk page. Regardless, I believe that the rapper is not notable. --BoothSift 03:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unknown person.PE65000 (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily as there's no evidence of significance or notability and then salt it because it'll almost certainly be recreated. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Skelton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sklelton fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, pretty much all coverage I could find are fleeting mentions in articles about his brother (NFL QB John Skelton). Even as a Fordham Alum I can't look past the lack of notability. GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find on him was references to his brother and minor transactional articles. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:SPORTSPERSON (no "significant award or honor", no "widely recognized contribution", no "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources") - Epinoia (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. He did appear in some preseason NFL games but that's insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But also tagging "needs cleanup" given the concerns about the text quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Continence Society[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article, with no third party indication of significance. Extensive editing by undeclared but obvious paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite poor but the society is clearly notable, with plenty of coverage in independent sources, some of which are behind a paywall and many not in English. Have a look at UroToday, Renal and Urology News, Medical Design & Outsourcing, Nursing Times, and the BMJ. Rathfelder (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have searched for sources that qualify as quality primary sources, and have been unable to find anything that indicates notability. Fails WP:GNG. There are also clear COI problems per nom - highly promotional in the least. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of non-primary sources. desmay (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scholarly organization that publishes a notable academic journal and that runs international conferences ought to be considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I added references about a report prepared by the society. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe content needs to be trimmed and promotional language needs to go for sure. But otherwise, it should be kept. Exploreandwrite (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a solution: Write an article for their journal, and add the necessary information about the society. If the promotionalism is removed from here there won't be much left. But the journal is notable , as it is listed in JCR with an impact factor of 3.2. There isno need for two articles, and the name most likely to be lookedfor on WP iis the journal name, not the society name. Alternatively, we could retitle and repurpose to the name of their journal, but there is no reason to keep promotional content even in the history, nor to encourage the writing of promotional artices. Better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)`[reply]
Keep The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether the article is good. There are plenty of reports on its activities from independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain and Rathfelder. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, borderline, thanks only to the solo independent ref by Eastmain (about the "IUGA / ICS joint report on the terminology"...). It'd be OK if any of the pubs listed by Rathfelder yielded a specific mention of ICS itself, or the ICS Annual Meeting. Permacultura (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Vegetarian Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Non-notable organization.~~ EDIT: organization completely non-notable except for a single event (certifying Taco Bell menu items). COI article creator. When I'd removed a single bare mention and information about a previous completely unrelated organization by the same name, there was nothing left. valereee (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going through all the news mentions of Taco Bell, and the articles seem to be bare mentions in articles about a new marketing strategy by Taco Bell. Is it possible sheer number of bare mentions could raise this to notability? --valereee (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Merge to Vegetarianism in the United States (if no such article, ought to be done). Hyperbolick (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As is this page would be a speedy deletion since the only reference is a link to their linkedin page which was written by them. I havent done the research but whoever created the page needs to do a lot more work before this page should even be considered as a keep. I would give them 3 days to ammend the page with proper references if they have them available. Perhaps someone can direct the creator to a page detailing how to properly source information. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with ScienceAdvisor. If the article starter wants to keep the article some further research is needed. I am not inclined to undertake. If the article is improved to show GNG I would vote keep. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ORGSIG "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable" - Epinoia (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Ignignokt and Err. T. Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooninites[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Characters are not notable outside of the ATHF series, and the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic. Both of those are notable, just not these minor characters. Only trivial references by and large. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Only one of the five sections covers the in-universe aspect of the topic, at an reasonable and appropriate length. The remainder of the fully-sourced article covers out-of-universe information about the characters, including production information and reception sections. Grapesoda22 (✉) 17:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are the show itself or things like dvd commentary. The rest are fairly trivial references. They're not notable outside of the show and the one event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 6 of the sources are episodes of the series, used solely in the in-universe section. 6 sources out of 29 isn't exactly "Most of the sources". Also, only 2 sources are DVD commentaries, which is very much a valid source of production information. Numerous pages, including several GA-level episodes of The Simpsons, cite DVD commentaries. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG in terms of the real world. Lots of trivial mentions, listings, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Grapesoda22 said, and the ATHF character articles in general should just be rewritten. IceWalrus236 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters. There is not a lot of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as the episodes themselves and the DVD commentaries are both primary sources. The majority of the remaining sources are either from unreliable sources (the fan wikis) or are just brief mentions of them in top ten lists or articles about the series as a whole that just mentions them without any sort of in-depth coverage. The only subject that is adequately covered by reliable secondary sources is the 2007 incident in Boston, and as that already has its own article, the information does not need to be duplicated here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: – for the record non of the sources are fan wikis. The wiki URL is an archived link from the official show-site of the series, it is was never editable. Also, reception links come from reputable sources such as IGN and Heavy.com. Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Then the official site would also count as primary sources, and thus do nothing to establish notability, so the point still stands. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment the two show-site sources just confirm basic information. They are only used in one section and are even backed up alongside a Heavy.com link. Grapesoda22 (✉) 22:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Grapesoda22. I'd personally argue that there's sufficient sourcing in the article already for it to meet GNG. Scope and content of the article save for a paragraph or two is completely different from that of the Boston incident too, so not a content fork either. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grapesoda22 and others above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly pretty baffled at the Keep votes, seeing as the pages for the actual main cast are mostly Delete and redirect. The sources cited in the page are woefully inadaquate to pass GNG. Review:

Sources 1-7 are literally just the show itself.
8 is just some page on how to stream the show
9-11 are Adult swim WP:PRIMARY sources
12: interview with trivial mention of the characters
13: More DVD commentary
14: Trivial mention
15: Trivial mention
16: Amazon listing, seriously?!
17-18: 10 best villains page. A start, but it's still borderline trivial.
19-22: All dealing with the boston incident.
23: interview with trivial mentions
24: Trivial mention
25: Cover art of the dvd
26: citing one of the ATHF games
27-29: citing various Adult Swim and ATHF sources.

For those keeping score, that's a whopping 16 sources that are just primay sources from Adult Swim. And another source was a freaking amazon store listing! The rest of the sources have only trivial mentions of the cast. You guys must have very low threshold for coverage, as simply mentioning the cast in an article seems to be enough. But WP:GNG asks for sources that are in depth, that is, there should be articles about just these characters. We don't have that. We have instead a lot of primary, and some trivial mentions strung together for an article.

Conclusion: these characters do not pass GNG at all. The show and the boston bomb incident are notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters per Harizotoh's breakdown of the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aoba47: Re:Breakdown of the sources:

Sources 1-7 are episode citations that are only used in the in-universe section. (which Harizotoh never mentioned)
Source 8 is a Heavy.com page critically reviewing the long-running series as a whole, that makes a point to mention these characters specifically, it is not "just some page on how to stream the show".
Sources 9 and 10 were in-fact from Adult Swim, but have since been removed and the same information is still backed by source 8.
What is now Source 9 is actually a DVD commentary, which is widely considered a viable source for production information on Wikipedia.
Source 10 is an interview with the creator, which is only meant to cover one line of information.
Source 11 is another DVD commentary, which again, is widely considered a viable source for production information.
Source 12 is a link an The A.V. Club article that devotes an entire section discussing the pilot.
Source 13 is an IGN article that offers even more backing for the section.
Source 14 is in-fact Amazon, but it can be removed quite simply and the aforementioned IGN would still cover the information sufficiently.
Sources 15 and 16 are links to Paste and IGN, that make a point of mentioning the characters reviewing the series as a whole.
Sources 17–20 are all viable news sources discussing a major story that made national news, which was spearheaded by these characters. Why wouldn't the panic be covered here?
Source 21 is an interview another, which is only meant to cover cover one line of information.
Source 22 is a link from Geek.com, is only meant cover one line of information.
Source 23 is a DVD cover, which can be seamlessly removed with no issue.
Source 24 does source a video game. So what? It is information that is relevant to the topic. The ability to cite video games is the whole reason Template:cite video game exists in the first place.
Sources 25–27 Are different media appearances have made outside of the franchise, that are each cited appropriately.

Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very, very confused about WP:GNG. By going through the list, I was showing that not a single source referenced was an indepth article on the characters. GNG is very explicit. You need articles that are indepth about the subject. What you have is a bunch of articles that mention the Mooninites, but aren't the main subject matter. You really need like NYTimes pieces just on the characters. You don't have that. You have a series of trivial references to the characters found in articles about the show and the boston event. That the article had to rely so heavily on primary sources to even be a decent length demonstrates how unimportant and not notable the characters are. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed numerous secondary sources used throughout the article, so it does not "rely" on primary sources. All of the reception sources feature entire sections devoted to the critic's respective takes on the characters, none of them are just quick passing mentions at all. Your argument that there needs to be sources that are completely devoted to the topic is even contradicted in WP:GNG, as the very first bullet point clearly states "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like the question here is whether some of the sources cited meet the WP:GNG criteria for notability-establishing sources. The discussion is not entirely conclusive; some more comments would be appreciated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking through all the sources, I don't see anything which discusses the Mooninites significantly as the Mooninites. I'm sure there's a redirect or merge option here since we do have character lists all over this site and I'm fine with either of those, but this article fails WP:GNG badly (partially as evidenced by the source review above). The Heavy article is about the show as a whole, the Paste/IGN articles are clickbait list articles, and the Boston scare is about a separate event. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Due to disgraceful abuse of sourcing (anyone who has to resort to using Amazon.com as a “source” has lost the damn plot), the only reasonable decision here is to delete this and merge it with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Trillfendi (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only one single source is Amazon, for information that still has backing when removed. Calling the sourcing here a "disgraceful abuse" is a pretty hyperbolic statement; I mean we don't have to agree with each-other but we should still try to remain civility. Grapesoda22 (✉) 03:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem like it merits a merge, being purely Wikia-caliber material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WORLDwrite[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPA. Poor article. Effectively completely unreferenced. Fails the most basic GNG Rayman60 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE or WP:CORPDEPTH; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for better sourcing, and was thinking about !voting keep, since there were a lot of hits from 'Spiked' magazine. Then I found this, which does seem to be a decent piece of journalism - but one of the things it flags up is that Spiked was set up by people who were directly involved with Worldwrite, so their articles wouldn't be independent sources. That makes the Hackney Gazette piece the only good source I can find about them - and we require multiple such sources to establish notability per WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch girl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disambiguation page (which this is supposed to be) is not required because there are no articles that are titled, or could be titled, "Witch girl" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1914 and 1961 movies, and the 2007 comic series, can all be reasonably referred to by the name. Quite a few of the others are a stretch for things known by this name, but that's solved with the edit tool, no need for the administrator delete tool. I didn't need to use mine. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1914 and 1961 movies and the 2007 comic series are not mentioned in any article and are not suitable as disambiguation page entries per MOS:DABMENTION. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clean up, restructure, and move to Witch Girl (disambiguation), but don't delete. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:15, 07 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page cannot be moved to Witch Girl (disambiguation) if there is no page at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. At least capitalize the G. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two movies, Fire Dept and magical girl all seem valid entries, pointing to pages with info on the relevant topic. That said, some other entries should be deleted: the comic book doesn't seem anywhere near notable, and partial matches aren't allowed per WP:D. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Burridge (writer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have added an interview to external links section, but can't see significant coverage of this non-fiction writer. Tacyarg (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a prolific author who published in English, but gets only two hits in a proquest news archive search. One is in German, full text not on Proquest (Rebellen gegen jeden Trend True, Holger. Hamburger Abendblatt; Hamburg [Hamburg]07 Dec 2010: 1.). The other (Motorhead tribute band to play Arnprior Arnprior EMC; Arnprior, Ont. [Arnprior, Ont]24 Mar 2016: A.39. ) quotes him as : "Motorheadbangers World Fan Club president Alan Burridge." There is also this article in DorsetLife : The ace of spades – Alan Burridge Ray Fairclough interviews Alan Burridge, Upton clay industry historian and Motörhead biographer. And gNews has a couple of hits in Deutsch.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a writer who was prolific, but does not meet WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any of the 4 criteria of WP:AUTHOR; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Butcher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find significant coverage of this children's writer. Article has been marked as needing more citations since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, in addition to BBC interview already on the page, I added some reviews of his popular Spy High series of spy novels for kids. Looks like a modestly popular AUTHOR with a page that needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started adding the titles of the books, in order to add reviews of them as references, and possibly to show that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR #3. Then I realised that there is an article about the Spy High series, which could do with more references itself. I will try to find reviews of his other books, or articles about him, and also check how WP:NBOOK and WP:AUTHOR interact. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per E.M.Gregory's comments. Article needs an ambitious editor not a deletion. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 22:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I see 4 sources, total, between the two article. I did search, and these were all I could find. On the other hand, the books are published in American and British editions, and in Australia/NZ. And real publishing house has been bringing new titles out for years. And there aren't a lot of review venues for middle school spy novels. If this is kept, the 2 pages should be merged. Thoughts?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR as having created a notable/significant/well known series of books. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author of demonstrably pouplar series of books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more reviews to the Spy High article, so there are now 13 sources. That is enough, I think, both to demonstrate that the books meet WP:NBOOK and the author meets WP:AUTHOR #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I haven't searched by translated titles - it's possible there are more reviews in other languages. I don't think the two articles need to be merged, although that is a possibility - the author article is currently very short, and includes only one source that is not already in the series article. I am a bit concerned about the language in the Spy High article, but that is a matter for improvement (and not something I want to spend time on). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carola Remer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All she has is modeling agencies and directories. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination rationale is false, as article already has a Cut (NY Mag) source listed. I just added an easily located Die Welt profile. In other words, this article is sourced to the same level as the dozens of other 3-sentence name+heritage+agency+clickbait fashion model articles proliferating throughout the encyclopedia. Technically, a pass of WP:GNG, and perhaps of WP:ENT (since WP:NMODEL just redirects there), depending on how one interprets fashion model participation in shows, ads, and covers as "other productions" or not. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cut’s Meet the New Girl series was just an appendage of their Model Manual (aka the directory of profiles they haven’t updated since 2012). They really only tend to offer trivia beyond saying a few jobs a model did. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a modeling agency, not a directory. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That “article” is 3 sentences then right at the bottom Explore other rising stars (plus all the big names) in our extensive Model Manual, featuring runway pics, glamorous editorials, model bios, career timelines, and more. Very obvious that they wanted the reader to segue to their directory since that’s what they were known for. Meanwhile in her career section, the first sentence is a dead link to her

former modeling agency One Management, which shouldn’t have been there in the first place. The only thing left was models.com which is reserved for the infobox. The nonsensical inclusion of “supermodels.nl” which is a forum at best, is undignified. Trillfendi (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing indicating that Ms. Remer's career as a model is particularly notable. As mentioned above, any references link to model directories, or aren't working links (supermodels.nl and the NY Magazine links, as of right now). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Balon Greyjoy: Is it your understanding that the working Die Welt link in the article is a model directory? Bakazaka (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to barely satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I also agree that the nomination rationale is false. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How wonderful it would be that people would actually learn about fashion media before the uneducated quips about my rationale. Too much like right I guess. Take out the defunct NYMag directory and it’s defunct Meet the New Girl blurb attached to it, take out the obsolete, inappropriate reference to her former employer One Management, and take out the ridiculous, unreliable defunct forum “supermodels.nl” and you’re now left with one thing. And that’s enough to satisfy an article? No. Trillfendi (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT Lubbad85 (☎) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMODEL, has not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions" - just having a job as a model does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWLW[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a radio station, not properly referenced as passing WP:BCAST. There are four conditions that a radio station has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article -- operating with a proper broadcast license, as opposed to being a pirate or operating under the Philippine equivalent of North American Part 15/VF rules; originating some of its own programming, as opposed to being a rebroadcaster of something else; actually being on the air, as opposed to existing as a paper license that never actually launched; and all three of those facts being reliably sourceable to at least some minimal degree of media coverage about it. But the only "source" present here at all is a PDF directory chart uploaded to an open document storage platform, which (a) isn't media, so it isn't proof of the reliable sourcing condition in and of itself, (b) isn't verifiably a real government document, as opposed to a user-generated spreadsheet, so it isn't satisfactory proof of the licensing condition in and of itself, and (c) completely fails to contain any indication whatsoever of whether the other two conditions are met at all. So this one PDF is not, in and of itself, a free notability pass for a radio station in the absence of any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added government and court documents that establish that the station is real. I wish that the broadcast regulator in the Philippines would add a database of stations to its website to make it easier to verify listings. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply existing is not enough to establish notability - does not meet WP:GNG - Epinoia (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Weight of argument supports keeping the article and the nominator has withdrawn the AfD. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Distinguished Flying Cross is insufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OBE too,[9] and he made group captain serving through to 1970.[10] A whole lot of not in depth coverage on WWII - e.g. - [11][12][13][14]. He's not far off from passing NSOLDIER on rank alone (Gp Cpn being one notch down). I suspect there more be more in newspaper archives for the post war service. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tempted to go for keep because he has written a book about his life. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's sufficient - the publisher Pen and Sword Books is notable (but puts out a lot of ebooks so not all authors or books are likely to be notable); the book doesn't seem to have been widely reviewed. But other awards may establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Distinguished Flying Cross is the third-level military decoration awarded to officers so he passes WP:ANYBIO having received a well-known and significant award or honor. He also passes WP:SOLDIER because he was the Commanding Officer of No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. Explore WP:ATD Lubbad85 (☎) 23:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the OP that the DFC doesn't appear to qualify him for SOLDIER, which is quite strict in defining people as notable for having received awards (Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times -- this does not seem to apply to the DFC, but I'd welcome any correction from someone who knows more about the subject). I think the fact that I don't know whether the DFC is UK's highest award for valour, and the fact that Lubbad has to parrot the exact words of our article on the DFC, both indicate that it is not a well-known and significant award or honor, and so does not meet ANYBIO, and Lubbad appears to have misread SOLDIER as it explicitly defines a substantial body of troops as referring to historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron. (I definitely also cannot endorse the somewhat polemical and uncivil remarks by Lubbad on the above-linked rescue list, but that's neither here nor there, just explaining how I noticed this AFD.) I was initially going to say "week keep" since I saw the Telegraph article and misread the dates, assuming he received a lengthy profile while still alive; an obituary is not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the Times article, but if the nom is withdrawing there's no reason why I should put up with this kind of abuse from the trolls who are most fervently arguing for this article to be kept, just for supporting a nomination that even the nominator no longer supports. So consider my !vote withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slow going research since this subject is appearing in books and information is not easily accessed through internet searches. Subject is quite a notable and fascinating chap. I have been adding news and book references and I am going to keep improving the article. Subject also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Many books and news sources call out the contributions and exploits of the subject Lubbad85 (☎) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: I'm finding it hard to believe the subject could meet the criterion you quote above; I'm getting scarcely a few hundred blank Google hits for the book title, which is enough to prove the book exists, but doesn't make him notable as an author.[15] My (non-notable) uncle wrote a book six years earlier (before the world-wide web was as prevalent as it was in 2005) and a similar search brought up five times as many hits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:BASIC and so should be kept per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Listing a bunch of terms is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, if you are going to insert humorous off-topic images (or whatever the above is) please take a page from EEng (talk · contribs)'s book and do so in a manner that does not imply that someone else put it there. Placing it far up the page next to my comment may have been a good faith mistake, or it may have been the same thing you forced me to call you out for here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the image has a portrait orientation, it was aligned so that it didn't stick out below the discussion. It was aligned so that its base was level with my !vote and its top was aligned with the rescue notice. As the subject was a member of the Few, the image seems relevant rather than humorous. The caption quotes the Times to demonstrate the subject's notability. Andrew D. (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid such contretemps I try to remember to sign the caption (using the three-~ not four-~ sig, for compactness). E Eng 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid signing such quotations because a sig would tend to confuse the attribution of the quotation. As these are supposed to be discussions, not votes, we shouldn't need to spatter them with garish sigs. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinguished Flying Cross (significant award). He also passes WP:SOLDIER because he was the Commanding Officer of No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Air force squadrons are not particularly large units (World War II era squadrons typically comprised around 100-200 personnel and 12-18 aircraft), and their commanders are not particularly senior. As indicated by the squadron number, vast numbers of flying squadrons were raised during World War II. The commanders of these units are not assumed to be notable given their relatively low ranks and position leading a smallish unit. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unpingable One Please stop this trolling of me. I already refuted everything in your comment before you made it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am here on my own. Why are you trolling me? ~~You came here after I had edited!~~ I was unaware you had edited.

I will not feed the trolls.

Spotlight effect? It's not about you.

I can be pinged using [[User:7&6=thirteen]]. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this wasn't about me either? The mere fact that you have been trolling me is not up for debate. In this case you either came here from ARS (you are a regular contributor there), in which case you saw this before coming here, or came here by accident, in which case your just happening to repeat the exact same two arguments I had already refuted is very difficult to take as a coincidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about you. I don't care to see or hear from or speak to or about you. Your self centered paranoia is baseless. If you think I'm trolling you, you know where to go. You keep nattering about this, which is distinctly and unnecessarily unpleasant. WP:Dead horse, please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete With sadness, he does not pass out notability requirements.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the fact that he was the subject of what looks to be a full scale obituary in The Times means that WP:BIO is probably met. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind users this is not about them, it is about Richard Haine DFC, if you have a compliant about user conduct take it to ANI or AE.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that this article in its present state is not the same article that was proposed for deletion. Content and sourcing has been vastly improved. More than a 5X expansion. It should be judged on its present merits, not on some evanescent hypothetical. You are shooting at a fast moving target. In that sense, WP:Before should NOW support a keep; this is what the article could become with better research and effort.

He was made an OBE. His career was high level (no pun intended), distinguished, and now detailed in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a new source, a biography in Men of The Battle of Britain: A Biographical Dictionary of The Few which is basically an encyclopedia specific to "the few" who fought in the Battle of Britain. I can't figure out how to link to the page, but type in his name in the search box and it will get there. Should everyone in this encyclopedia be on Wikipedia? No obviously, but this source, plus he was involved in the first fighter attack on Germany of the war, and his later award, and the other in-depth sources set him above the rest. -- GreenC 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't access the full article about him in the Times. [16] Hidden behind a paywall. Do they publish as much detail for anyone who dies who isn't significant? Anyway, he is notable for his military career as others have stated clear evidence of. "including the first night fighter defense over Britain, and was involved in the first fighter attack of the war on Germany territory." seems like notable accomplishments as well. Dream Focus 17:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Times publishes a few editorial obituaries each day. Today, for example, it has three: Boon Gould; David McNee; Roger Moate – notice that they are all blue links. They are similar to the obituaries in the NYT and, in my view, they are prima facie evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Obits in major newspapers and the other sources are more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably meets WP:ANYBIO but not WP:SOLDIER wrt award and rank - the latter has arguably a higher threshold but does not preclude notability for other reasons. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". A full obituary in the Times carries weight, even if it is otherwise a little weak on sources. The subject is at the threshold I think. Therefore happy with a decision to keep. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hader Clinic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. The only reliable sources provide only incidental coverage of this place. Rogermx (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree the existing references are not substantial. I have just added 2 decent references found via a search in ProQuest, including a 2016 ABC TV Four Corners program, which gave substantial (negative) coverage to the clinic, and I would think satisfy WP:NORG. The content of the page does not feel overly promotional to me (have see a lot worse) so I would be inclined to keep it. Cabrils (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if not strongly. There is a good scattering of non trivial mentions in good IRS other those already referred to here or in the article, sufficinent to add to the article somewhat. Aoziwe (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable about the subject. As it is this is an advertisement or promotion and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nomination has been withdrawn (speedy keep reason 1). (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Barkes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now contains several independent references. Rillington (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason why this article can't remain. There seems to be a number of reliable sources. I think it passes WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Kenner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP lacking independent references Rathfelder (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be notable. Needs improvement. A New Yorker profile of Victor Niederhoffer has this mention "The mother of Niederhoffer’s son, Aubrey, who is one and a half, is Laurel Kenner, a former editor at Bloomberg whom he met in 1999. " They did not wed. Also here: [17] They did co-author a book. Other sources:

"Tall storys before a fall Self-promoting chief executives and swanky skyscrapers usually signal disaster ahead," The Telegraph [18]E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time there is no significant coverage. It doesn’t take much looking before you run into “people search website” territory... that’s not good. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran some more searches, but there really does not seem to be enough to support an article. Feel free to ping me if you can source it persuasively, I'm always willing to reconsider when sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Chhaya[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not qualifying WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST if we consider him an artist? There are mentions in a few news articles but all of them are his quotes or opinions on some social issues. Nothing by others or something which says he is notable QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the following three sources:
1. Bhatkhande, Ankita; Chandrasekharan, Gitanjali (7 June 2015). "Class act". Mumbai Mirror.
2. Tambe, Chandrasheel (5 June 2018). "Stigma to Freedom: Reflection of caste and identity in the poems of Vaibahv Chhaya". Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. 25 (1): 1–16 pages. ISSN 0972-1401.
3. Dsouza, Dipti Nagpaul (23 February 2019). "Fourth edition of Dhasal literary festival to focus on marginalised voices". The Indian Express.

show that the subject has some prominence as a contemporary Dalit poet-activist, and may just about push him over the WP:GNG/WP:NAUTHOR line. There may be other sources/reviews in Marathi but the nominator is likely better equipped than I to find and evaluate the them. Abecedare (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination and this is the further analysis of sources mentioned.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Times of India June 07, 2015/ Class Act		Enough coverage of him with other few dalit activists	✔ Yes
Maharashtra Times 06-06-2015 (Marathi Content)	The article is written by the subject of this article		✘ No
You are my Ambedkar (Marathi content Poem	Again the news article is written by the subject themselves		✘ No
Baa Bhima (Father Ambedkar) Marathi Poem	Again the news article is written by the subject themselves		✘ No
STIGMA TO FREEDOM by Tambe		Yes this is the only reliable and significant coverage of the subject	✔ Yes
Mumbai: Fourth edition of Dhasal literary festival to focus on marginalised voices	As the event was organized by the subject themselves		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QueerEcofeminist: Can you take a look at the Mumbai Mirror article again, since it is is more than "Just a mention of Vaibhav's name and a quote by him"? Almost all of the article starting from "Vaibhav Chaya, like his guru Namdeo Dhasal, has little value for prosody" concerns the subject. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, right I checked again, Yes it takes a review of works by Vaibhav, Nisar Zalte, Kabeer Shakya and few more people. that article has enough of the coverage, which makes two sources have enough sources. I guess this subject is yet to gain enough coverage, they might get more in coming years but atleast now we don't have enough of it. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV. Possible case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet any of the 4 criteria of WP:POET - minor poet with only one book - the writing section says that he has only written articles for newspapers or magazines, no major critical essays on poetry, no anthologies, no poetry awards - promotional article for non-notable person; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barry (political analyst)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page has been tagged for souruing since 2016, and still lacks INEDEPENDENT sources. I ran a couple of keyword searches, without finding anything like WP:SIGCOV. Please feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone manages to source it properly. I am always willing to being persuaded by good sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Cleveland Indians first-round draft picks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Mills[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NBASEBALL Joeykai (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cleveland Indians first-round draft picks. Spanneraol (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spanneraol. He does have some coverage, such as this and a lot from the Visalia Times-Delta, of which this is probably the best, but not the only relevant coverage. Still, I would want to see something significant from another source that is not just about his being drafted before !voting to keep. If someone finds it I would be happy to change my !vote. Until then, redirect seems most appropriate given a very relevant redirect target. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of first round picks for reasons spelled out in my essay on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elżbieta Grabarek-Bartoszewicz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. As for wider WP:NBIO/WP:GNG, coverage is limited to local (regional) Polish newspapers and news portals. She has never received coverage in country-wide media. And most of the coverage I see is in passing, or very court, and not that much about her, but about some projects she has been involved in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The city of Gdańsk has a population of 464,254, which suggests that the chairperson of its city council may be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the corresponding article https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/El%C5%BCbieta_Grabarek-Bartoszewicz in the Polish Wikipedia at pl:Elżbieta Grabarek-Bartoszewicz is longer than this one. Here is a machine translation into English. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The matter of which cities get to confer notability on their city councillors per NPOL #2, and which cities do not, is not determined by an arbitrary population cutoff: it is determined by whether or not external sources classify the city as a global city. Gdańsk does not have that status, so its city councillors (including the chairperson) do not get a free presumption of notability just for existing as city councillors — the notability test that she would have to clear is that she can be shown to have received significantly more than just the standard local media coverage that every city councillor in every city can always show, but with just five footnotes this isn't showing that at all. And while it's true that the Polish-language article is longer than this, what it isn't is better sourced than this: it just cites the exact same five sources, and doesn't add even one new source that isn't already here, let alone the substantial number of new sources it would take to actually make a difference here. So even if this article were expanded into a full word-for-word translation of the Polish one, she still would not clear the notability bar — because the inclusion bar for a city councillor hinges on the sourcing, not on the length of the article, and the sourcing here is not nearly good enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I Will Been recently adding her biography and an appropriate reference to her. Telex80 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources are not helping much - few mentions in passing in local media, a single interview with her but not about her but about some local politics. Nothing that suffices for passing WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Polish version of this article is also being considered for deletion (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2019:05:05:Elżbieta Grabarek-Bartoszewicz). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POLITICIAN says, "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability" - does not have any notable achievements - WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - as nom states, "coverage is limited to local (regional) Polish newspapers and news portals" - does not meet notability guidelines, therefore delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shania (given name)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one notable Shania at this time, so what's the point? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also Shania Junianatha. MarkZusab (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She can replace this article's link in Shania Twain's hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV demonstrating this is a common name or that it has actually been popularized by the musician cited in the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other notable people named Shania probably exist, even if no Wikipedia editor has written about them yet. This Snapchat-related death might be notable enough (as Death of Shania McNeil to turn into an article, even if yiu don't have much respect for the Daily Mail. Horrifying footage of woman, 21, is taken moments before she died in a head-on collision - as friends post selfies from hospital a day after escaping the wreckage Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this not even half-assed atrocity. Frankly this is an insult to people who study names. Trillfendi (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete We can't keep an article because of what might happen in the future (no crystal ball). If however a few more famous Shanias pop up, then there should be enough to recreate this article. But as of now, delete. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Due to the new revelations mentioned below. I guess 'the future' is now. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I also concur with Clarityfriend's hat note suggestion. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep after addition of worthwhile content and citations today – subsequent to all the above comments. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded and referenced the article yesterday. I further added ((ill))s to three women named Shania with articles on non-English Wikipedias in Special:Diff/895642733/895650931, all three lifted directly off Wikidata:
1. Shania Collins, American sprinter and gold-medal winner at the 2019 USA Indoor Track and Field Championships
2. Shania Gracia [id], Indonesian singer and a member of the Indonesian idol group JKT48
3. Shania Junianatha [id], Indonesian singer and former member of JKT48
We have a fine opportunity here to expand the English-language coverge of these women.
Apart from being a valid set index, the article is a quite normal ((given name)) article: We have sources that speak in detail about the name, and as such the article meets WP:GNG.
Also worth mentioning is the uncertainty about the origin and meaning of the name that I have demonstrated by citing multiple sources. Here we have as an encyclopedia an opportunity to clarify that these uncertainties exist.
The nomination asks a question rather than advancing an argument for deletion. As such this discussion would have been eligible for closure under WP:SK1, had it not been for the subsequent "delete" !votes that are far from flawless: "... demonstrating this is a common name" is not a criterion rooted in any P&Gs, nor is "has actually been popularized by the musician". The "speedy delete" !vote is invalid: no CSD apply here, and neither of the two arguments in the !vote are policy-based. The last "delete" !vote argues that "If however a few more famous Shanias pop up, then ...". "Famous" is an arbitrary criterion, all we ask for is notable, and that goes for the name itself as well. (Keep) Sam Sailor 04:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC) (Amended for testing purposes (AfD Stats). --Sam Sailor 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Comment I still don’t see how these are reliable sources about names. BellyBallot? Really? The others simply focus on Shania Twain... which isn’t even her real name. Simply a confused mess. Trillfendi (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Lugnuts we now have a local article about Shania Collins. Sam Sailor 11:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Medeiros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once again, we have an article of an un-notable video girl whose first AfD was flawed beyond belief (on top of the fact that the page was recreated after having previously been deleted.). One even had the nerve to say, "We should keep it because when you google her she has a clothing line and autobiography" and... since when is that a logical reason to keep an article? (Consequently, when you google said clothing line–it never came out.) This article has absolutely no career section because there is no career to speak of ("girl in R. Kelly video", "girl in Chris Brown video", "girl in Pharrell video" yada yada yada. Hundreds others have done the same. Uncredited appearance on Law & Order, thousands of entry level actors do it every week.) Besides that, the article is only one sentence. One of the references is, unspeakably, TMZ. And what did they have to offer, you ask? A TRANSCLUSION OF A ONE SENTENCE IMDB BIO THAT ANY RANDOM USER WROTE! Even worse: "Meet Brazilian Bombshell: Model rivals Kim K in bootylicious twerk-out". Yeah... no. Trillfendi (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:NACTOR. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:28, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom 9H48F (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, non-notable actor. QueerFilmNerd^talk 18:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.